Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Topic Date User

Naming rights on FAs (aka The Law of Ming) 10-Jul-2006 At 1:01:52 PM Ronny

Message

I'm with Boardlord on this one - at least partially.

There's a big difference between aid routes (that actually have merit as aid routes) and free routes. If a route has been dogged/top roped/batmaned then it really just hasn't been done yet. Aid routes on the other hand have definately been 'done'. Standards of what is acceptable as an aid route have changed a fair bit over the last 50 years - new aid routes tend to be lines that will not go free, and are for the most part long. Whereas things like Pegasus made sense as aid routes in days gone by, if they were found these days they would really be considered to be a potential free route.

So Pegasus was 'done' as an aid route, hence Ming says naming is ok.
I can think of one example of someone writing up a route at Moonarie at about 17M1 in recent years. Someone else did it free (at 16). Really that route made no sense as an aid route, so it hadn't been 'done'.

Toproping is never enough to properly 'do' a free route. There may be some debate about what is (flash v redpoint v onsight v pinkpoint), but surely no one disagrees with this. Maybe if a guide book is coming out and there's a line that has been top roped but no one's had the balls to solo it yet then including it makes sense - but surely it should just say that there is a project which been TRed but is yet to see a proper ascent.

Naming routes is completely unnecessary anyway. But if its going to be done there might as well be some recognised 'ethic'/'tradition' by which it occurs. There is. It is the Law of Ming.